Strict voter ID requirements are back in force in Texas after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals intervened late Tuesday to stay an order from a
district court judge that found the law had been written with an “unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” The three-judge panel cited U.S.
Supreme Court admonitions against instilling confusion by changing voting rules too close to an election.

The ruling [PDF] — which reinstates a law that infamously allows some forms of identification, like gun permits, but disqualifies others, such as a
current student ID — comes less than a week before early voting begins in Texas.

District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos had called the Texas law akin to an “unconstitutional poll tax” because of the steep costs of obtaining
state-sanctioned identification for voters who found themselves without an ID the law deemed proper. Evidence presented before the court showed that
more than 600,000 Texas voters had lost ballot access since the ID statute took effect.

Click link for remainder of article...

This is going to be interesting...

Now that the law has once again been reinstated we are going to see an aftermath that will be interesting to say the least. The law was reinstated
based on a Supreme Court decision that takes timing of elections into consideration, cited in reinstating this law (How close is the election and what
impact would the ruling have in terms of confusion by voters close to an election verse time voters have to absorb the law).

IE:

In suspending the Ramos ruling, the Appeals Court said the “value of preserving the status quo” trumped other considerations.

Invoking the recent decision on the Wisconsin ID law, the appellate justices said that no matter the outcome, the Supreme Court had implied that
timing was everything. “The stayed decisions have both upheld and struck down state statutes and affirmed and reversed district court decisions,”
said the 5th Circuit ruling, “so the timing of the decisions rather than their merits seems to be the key."

The difference, of course, is that, in the case of Wisconsin, keeping the status quo meant preserving ballot access for hundreds of thousands of
voters; in Texas, reinstating ID requirements that initially took effect in 2012, keeps more than a half-million voters away from the polls.

The reinstatement does not deal with the constitutionality of the law, so after the election the question then will become -

Can a person sue based on the constitutionality of this law and if so will it have an impact on the elections?

If people are elected based on the law prohibiting people from voting, can those elected officials be removed from office by the court system because
of the manner the vote was conducted?

In this particular case its an ID requirement, so I am not sure why the 5th circuit reinstated the law. While using the timing argument they seemed
to have ignored the fact that timing is not an issue in this case. You either need an ID to vote or you don't. While I personally Believe ID should
be required to vote, I don't see it as a factor in this case.

This has always amazed me about the US voting system. Take a look below - this is the requirement in Australia......

To enrol for the first time or get back on the roll, you can enrol online.

You will need to provide evidence of your identity. You can use your driver's licence, Australian passport number or have someone who is enrolled
confirm your identity.

It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.

You are eligible to enrol if you:

are an Australian citizen, or eligible British subject,
aged 18 years and over, and
have lived at your address for at least one month.
If you are 16 or 17 you can enrol now so when you turn 18 you'll be able to vote.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to produce an ID to vote. What amendment does that break?

I suppose then it's unconstitutional for me to be asked for ID for tobacco or alcohol. Or for me to have to produce ID to fly......

The irony here also is now thanks to the Real ID, formerly known as drivers license-ha, you have to have a BC, picture ID and proof of residence, just
to re-new your DL now, thanks to 9/11
So if having to provide all that just to re-new a DL is not unconstitutional, why would it be for voting?

So no, I don't see the problem showing ID when voting
Actually, that makes the most sense

What if the government if the land was determined by the people of that land? What if concerned citizens in Texas organized their own election
process, disregarding a stupid law that (by its appearance) is intended to guarantee access to a demographic more likely to be Republican?
(Recognizing that Texas is a red state, of course...)

I expect that if it were framed properly, the 600, 000 currently denied access would be joined by other that are simply concerned that the default
parties have too much sway on election process.

Students would get behind it, and those b*****ds can be vocal. I mean... this would be a symbolic thing, but would at least shed light on the problem.
Especially if the handling of the alternate election were transparent and traceable. Who could possibly have anything to fear from a citizens
organization putting on a better election than the feds can rig?

I hope all of those senior citizens out there who haven't renewed their licenses know they better vote absentee. The buses that pick them up from
the old folks home better make sure they have valid ID before boarding to go vote or there will be walkers and canes a-flying!

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to produce an ID to vote. What amendment does that break?

I suppose then it's unconstitutional for me to be asked for ID for tobacco or alcohol. Or for me to have to produce ID to fly......

The irony here also is now thanks to the Real ID, formerly known as drivers license-ha, you have to have a BC, picture ID and proof of residence, just
to re-new your DL now, thanks to 9/11
So if having to provide all that just to re-new a DL is not unconstitutional, why would it be for voting?

So no, I don't see the problem showing ID when voting
Actually, that makes the most sense

That's just my personal opinion

It's a pain...especially if you don't have any bills, lease, or tax statements at your current address.
I moved in with my girlfriend and needed to get a state issued ID. I had to bring her to sign a statement saying I was me.
I'm getting a passport as soon as I can free up a couple hundred. So much easier to do anything within your own country with one.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to produce an ID to vote. What amendment does that break?

I suppose then it's unconstitutional for me to be asked for ID for tobacco or alcohol. Or for me to have to produce ID to fly......

It's a state right verses federal overreach issue. The US Constitution specifically states the right to vote shall not be infringed upon.

The United States Constitution, in Article VI, clause (paragraph) 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States".

The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voters' qualifications to the individual states to decide. Over time, the federal role in
elections has increased, through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation (e.g., the Voting Rights Act of 1965).

At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of
citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

* - Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the United States and the U.S. state where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)

* - "Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age"
(26th Amendment, 1971).

Requirement that a person reside in a jurisdiction for an extended period of time (14th Amendment; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972))[3][4][4]

In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.

The voting rights act from the 1960's also applies. In that case Federal Law was used to standardize voting requirements. Since it contradicts some
state laws, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution kicks in (automatic "I Win" button for the Feds).

The Federal government argues that any requirement to vote is an automatic violation of the law. The typical view is Republicans want to restrict
voting to those eligible while the Democrats think voting is something that cannot be restricted, even if it means voting irregularities. The
Democrats platform is also based on minority groups and with almost 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico alone its a large enough chunk of
people it could sway elections.

At least that's the typical argument from each side.

If state law requires identification to vote, then the state should provide those ID's free of charge. The places to obtain ID should be open on days
as any other government agency.

Why the courts have sided with the federal government is confusing to me since I feel it violates the Constitution, specifically anything not
specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states. States that require ID to vote, imo, does not violate the Constitution.

I think the use of Federal law to trump states rights is an issue as well.

If I drive, fly, write a check, use a credit / debit card, enter a federal building etc I am required to provide identification. I fail to see how
those requirements are lawful and requiring ID to vote is not.

Obviously it's not flat out against the Democrats...that would be wrong. However, it is directed towards groups that primarily vote for Democrats,
racial minorities, low-income voters and young voters who are particularly likely not to have a photo ID. As an example, you can use a gun license as
a 'valid' form of ID for this law, however, a student ID from one of the state's universities is unacceptable. When the law was originally struck
down, the judge stated it would disenfranchise upwards of 600,000 voters. Furthermore, before this appeal, the law was decided to be a violation of
the 24th amendment as the secondary costs to acquire a valid ID cost money (up to $700 in some cases).

Voter ID is fighting a fight that barely exists. There were all of two cases of prosecuted voter fraud in Texas from 2001 to 2011, out of the millions
of votes cast between those years only two were illegal. That's not an issue we need to be fighting about right now, is it? Do we really have nothing
more pressing than stopping something that happens 0.0001% of the time? Now, if you can show me a concerted effort of multiple people voting multiple
times in one district and having a significant impact on the outcome of an election, I'm on board. That's not what I'm seeing though.

Again, the SCOTUS will strike this down. It's a poll tax and unfairly discriminates against those who do not have ID, for whatever reason.

I'm in favor of voter Id. When I got my Texas ID I had to show my birth certificate, SSN card, and a bill with current address to prove who I was.
This would only be a problem if someone didn't have, forged or stole the necessary documents. As someone has already mentioned, you have to show drive
a car, buy alcohol, tobacco, enter a club, get a job, and etc. If I have to show an ID for those things I think I should have to show an ID to vote.
I'm also having a hard time believing people can't afford to get an ID. If you can afford to have cable/internet, buy drugs, beer, cigarettes, a
tattoo, or get your hair and nails done, then you can afford the $17.00 to get a Texas ID card. Hopefully, requiring ID will deter people from voting
who shouldn't legally be voting or voting multiple times for the same candidate. However, if there isn't a way to track this in real time, I don't
see this fully stopping voter fraud. There needs to be a system in place to flag if an ID number has already been used to prevent multiple people
voting with forged IDs. I think this is a step in the right direction but still needs a lot of work to get all the kinks out.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.